Merged Drone attack on Saudi Oil Production

[Arcade22]

I've wondered for some time why more rebel forces don't use this kind of technology - freely available, easy to set up, high chance of escape for the pilots, and we can add highly effective. Why fly a 737 into a building when you can fly a drone carrying 20 lbs of C4?

Because the people involved lack the economic and logistical organization to purchase, distribute, maintain, train the operators and ultimately deploy such kinds of equipment effectively.

It sure helps if you can count on support from a foreign country.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Putin had a good time trolling the Saudis (and the geniuses that deliver them what they spend the third highest "defense" budget on the planet after USA and China on) by citing the Quran and offering them Russian defense technology (again). That was with Rouhani and Erdogan on the stage sitting next to him, reportedly amused, but not visible in the video like Zarif in the audience almost "falling from his chair".

 

[Planigale]

One thing that strikes me is if Iran is guilty of all the recent incidents it has been accused of, just how restrained it has been. None of these incidents has resulted in a death. An unmanned US drone shot down. Limpet mines on tankers in the Gulf. Drone attacks on Saudi refinery. All with no deaths. Compare that with the collateral damage (deaths of innocent civilians) caused by US and Israeli drone attacks, and the massive number of civilian deaths caused by Saudi air strikes (not to mention simple assassination).

It is worth emphasising that in the recent alleged up surge in activity by Iran no US, Israeli or Saudi citizens have been killed by Iran. The opposite cannot be said, US client states have been killing Iranians.

Any reaction causing actual deaths of humans would seem to me an over reaction for non-lethal action by iran.

 

[Venom]

Hit em (and the U.S.) in the pocketbook and deny responsibility to gauge the U.S. response. And it's probably working. Too aggressive a response will be condemned from all corners, and the U.S. already has a bad resume in that regard.

 

[Meadmaker]

I heard someone on NPR saying it was likely Iran today.

Sadly, though, the media is terrible at covering this sort of thing. I'm hoping to turn to here to get better information. That's kind of scary, and I know that separating the wheat from the chaff will be the hard part, as some of you post highly technical and accurate information, while others post less accurate stuff. However, from regular media sources you get nothing except sound-bite ready quotes from politicians and "experts" employed by news shows. The "wheat" on the media sources is more like Cream of Wheat.

What I'm wondering is how definitive is the evidence that Iran was involved, if such information can be gleaned from publicly available, trustworthy, sources.

For what it's worth, one thing that the guy on the radio said was that the rebels lacked the technical ability to fly something that far and hit that accurately. I'm pretty confident that the accuracy part is just wrong. If it were a small, slow moving, drone, I'm pretty sure my First Robotics kids could dump it into a three foot circle as long as there was something distinctive enough about the appearance of where it was hitting. Computer vision is neither difficult nor expensive these days. A heavier object at higher speeds is a lot more difficult, but not what it used to be.

Whoever did this, it was most definitely an act of war. A military response is justified. Whether it is wise or not is a separate issue, and one I'm not qualified to address.

ETA: "Trustworthy sources" do not include Donald Trump or anyone appointed by him, unless they are bringing technical evidence that they are willing to make public in such a way that competent individuals can challenge it.

 

[McHrozni]

One thing that strikes me is if Iran is guilty of all the recent incidents it has been accused of, just how restrained it has been.

What do you mean "if"? Who else would be?

Yes, the usual CT is "USA/SA/Israel", but had any of these attacks be actual false flags, we'd know it by now. There would be a drumbeat to imminent war and ultimatums would be issued issued two days ago.

The utter lack of a warmongering response essentially proves the attacks were not a false flag. The window has essentially closed by now. Repeated false flag attacks with no response to an attack is too stupid to be credible, even for Trump. The only remaining explanation is Iran was indeed after these attacks. Claiming otherwise without being paid good money to do so is just shameful.

None of these incidents has resulted in a death. An unmanned US drone shot down. Limpet mines on tankers in the Gulf. Drone attacks on Saudi refinery. All with no deaths. Compare that with the collateral damage (deaths of innocent civilians) caused by US and Israeli drone attacks, and the massive number of civilian deaths caused by Saudi air strikes (not to mention simple assassination).

Yeah. It turns out it's far easier to take out vital civilian infrastructure without inflicting casualties than it is to take out enemy combatants without inflicting casualties.

Who knew? Besides everyone, I mean.

Any reaction causing actual deaths of humans would seem to me an over reaction for non-lethal action by iran.

Does Iranian non-lethal action include smuggling of weapons to Yemeni rebels, who use them in mass executions and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, among others?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-aden-dozens-killed-in-attack-on-military-parade-officials-say/
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2377/Yemen:-Mass-executions-in-Houthi-group-courts
https://imi.org.ua/en/news/ten-yeme...outhis-now-face-possible-execution-rsf-i27660

I'm asking because that's been going on for almost eight years straight now and seems relevant to your point. I mean, sure, Saudis are no better, but if we're going to praise Iran for carrying out attacks that resulted in no deaths while criticitzing Saudi Arabia and USA for carrying out attacks that did result in death, we might as well round the whole thing and also criticize Iran for their attacks and actions that did result in mass deaths.

It seems fair to me, there are plenty of examples.

https://www.alsahwa-yemen.net/en/p-28310

McHrozni

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump's policy has been one of maximum pressure on Iran.
Obviously, it isn't working. And it is far from clear that an actual attack on Iran would do anything but create more support for Iran, internally and externally.
Even ignoring the bodycount, military escalation with Iran is just a very bad idea, and everybody (including the Saudi and Trump) knows it.

 

[McHrozni]

Trump's policy has been one of maximum pressure on Iran.

It's a stretch to call what Trump has been doing on Iran a "policy"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/policy

A policy is a set of ideas or plans that is used as a basis for making decisions, especially in politics, economics, or business.

I mean maybe, if you call "let's screw them" a set of ideas, if you're polite.

That said, the actions towards Iran weren't those of maximum pressure. It was of reasonable pressure, stopping well short of anything that could give Iran a reason to step back and reconsider their actions. Trump has made it abundantly clear he doesn't want a war with Iran. This emboldened Iran to the point it dared to take out half the Saudi oil production capacity in a clear act of war.

There's a reason why any actual policy is always "We take nothing off the table", or why GWB wasn't willing to take nuclear weapons out of the equation of dealing with terrorists. The moment you do that the enemy is emboldened, because they know you will compromise. Trump has been erratic on Iran, but he made it perfectly clear military action is off the table.

That's worse than doing the same, but officially keeping the military action on the table.

Obviously, it isn't working. And it is far from clear that an actual attack on Iran would do anything but create more support for Iran, internally and externally.
Even ignoring the bodycount, military escalation with Iran is just a very bad idea, and everybody (including the Saudi and Trump) knows it.

Trump painted himself into a corner. His pressure on Iran was sufficient for Iran to launch a major strategic attack against Saudi Arabia, inflicting untold economic damage to the country. In the meantime, Trump already backtracked and is unwilling to retalliate.

Trump has no good way out of the problem of his own making. There are, of course, many tools to make Iran pay for the damage, but Trump is unable or unwilling to use them. Most of the tools are bad, but Trump doesn't have the willingness to use the bad tools and is left by nothing.

The situation currently has only two endgames: either Trump strikes at Iran, or he is forced into a humiliating defeat by Iran. Thus far he was unwilling to consider the former while hoping the latter doesn't take place.

McHrozni

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is a third, one that all players seem to prefer:

pretend it never happened, and behind the scenes work to make sure it doesn't happen again, mainly by making Saudi Arabia buy even more air defense equipment.

The reason why MBS doesn't want this to get big is because it pretty much tanked his chances to privatize the Kingdom's oil production any time soon, which is his signature plan.
But he can salvage it if he can quickly restore production and demonstrate better security for the future.

 

[McHrozni]

There is a third, one that all players seem to prefer:

pretend it never happened, and behind the scenes work to make sure it doesn't happen again, mainly by making Saudi Arabia buy even more air defense equipment.

Yeah, beacuse if history has shown one thing, it's that defence is the best defence.

That's just buying time before the eventual humiliation. Granted, they only need to hold out for another 16 months or so. Then it may well be a different hand will be at the helm of the US.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

There is a third, one that all players seem to prefer:

pretend it never happened, and behind the scenes work to make sure it doesn't happen again, mainly by making Saudi Arabia buy even more air defense equipment.

The reason why MBS doesn't want this to get big is because it pretty much tanked his chances to privatize the Kingdom's oil production any time soon, which is his signature plan.
But he can salvage it if he can quickly restore production and demonstrate better security for the future.

It would also mean Saudi having to fight a war on two fronts. The war in Yemen has been far more prolonged and difficult than Saudi expected. I am not sure it has the resources to fight a second war. It also is politically vulnerable it has been suppressing a significant component of its population, it may have to fight a war on a third front - internally.

 

[Planigale]

What do you mean "if"? Who else would be?
Yes, the usual CT is "USA/SA/Israel", but had any of these attacks be actual false flags, we'd know it by now. There would be a drumbeat to imminent war and ultimatums would be issued issued two days ago.

The utter lack of a warmongering response essentially proves the attacks were not a false flag. The window has essentially closed by now. Repeated false flag attacks with no response to an attack is too stupid to be credible, even for Trump. The only remaining explanation is Iran was indeed after these attacks. Claiming otherwise without being paid good money to do so is just shameful.



Yeah. It turns out it's far easier to take out vital civilian infrastructure without inflicting casualties than it is to take out enemy combatants without inflicting casualties.

Who knew? Besides everyone, I mean.



Does Iranian non-lethal action include smuggling of weapons to Yemeni rebels, who use them in mass executions and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, among others?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-aden-dozens-killed-in-attack-on-military-parade-officials-say/
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2377/Yemen:-Mass-executions-in-Houthi-group-courts
https://imi.org.ua/en/news/ten-yeme...outhis-now-face-possible-execution-rsf-i27660

I'm asking because that's been going on for almost eight years straight now and seems relevant to your point. I mean, sure, Saudis are no better, but if we're going to praise Iran for carrying out attacks that resulted in no deaths while criticitzing Saudi Arabia and USA for carrying out attacks that did result in death, we might as well round the whole thing and also criticize Iran for their attacks and actions that did result in mass deaths.

It seems fair to me, there are plenty of examples.

https://www.alsahwa-yemen.net/en/p-28310

McHrozni

I suppose the people who said they did it - Yemenis might actually have done it? they are the ones being bombed by Saudi so would have a motive. They have a track record of having launched drone attacks on Saudi airbases.

Iran has directly killed no Israelis, Saudis or US citizens. The reverse is not true, Israel has a long track record of carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran, and has being attacking Iranians outside of Iran - none of whom were an imminent threat to Israelis. Both Israel and the US have previously carried out cyber attacks on Iranian infra-structure. Iraq at the time a US client directly invaded Iran resulting in 100,000s of Iranian deaths.

I am not arguing Iran is harmless, but if you continually provoke then a reaction must be expected. There is no doubt security issues have deteriorated since the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal with Iran and imposed sanctions that have a serious humanitarian impact on Iranian people, including severe limitation on access to medicines. The US seemed to make no attempt at entering into negotiations about extending or altering the deal with Iran before withdrawing.

I have no doubt both sides in the Yemeni civil war have committed brutal and nasty acts probably are war crimes. Iran may be supplying weapons and if so is as guilty as the US i(and UK) who also supply weapons. The Saudis however are directly participating and I suspect they have found it harder to exit hostilities than to enter in to them.

Given that the US and Israel are committed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the long record of attacks on Iran by the US and its client states, any negotiations need to understand that disarming to an extent that leaves Iran subject to any of its many unstable neighbours who may decide they have a territorial claim is a no go. (Remembering at least one of its neighbours is a nuclear power.)

Having seen what has happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, any attempt at regime change in Iran is likely to result in a humanitarian disaster, floods of refugees and increased terrorism.

 

[McHrozni]

I suppose the people who said they did it - Yemenis might actually have done it? they are the ones being bombed by Saudi so would have a motive. They have a track record of having launched drone attacks on Saudi airbases.

Iran has directly killed no Israelis, Saudis or US citizens. The reverse is not true, Israel has a long track record of carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran, and has being attacking Iranians outside of Iran - none of whom were an imminent threat to Israelis. Both Israel and the US have previously carried out cyber attacks on Iranian infra-structure.

Can you take your nonesense somewhere else please? Iran has been sponsoring terrorist groups for decades, paying bounties to any terrorist who hurt westerners, of any stripe or color. You can't wave that off by saying "Iran directly killed no one" and pretend that's relevant when Iran has been sponsoring mass murders for the crime of being white.

Iraq at the time a US client directly invaded Iran resulting in 100,000s of Iranian deaths.

Yes, the client state of Iraq invaded Iran with their American T-72 tanks and MiG fighters. Poor Iran only had the Soviet F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats to defend themselves.

Do you even read what you write?

I am not arguing Iran is harmless, but if you continually provoke then a reaction must be expected.

This works both ways. Iran has been continuously provoking the West in general and USA in particular for 40 years straight.

I have no doubt both sides in the Yemeni civil war have committed brutal and nasty acts probably are war crimes. Iran may be supplying weapons and if so is as guilty as the US i(and UK) who also supply weapons.

Iran is supplying weapons to rebels who are fighting against an internationally recognized government. Saudis are in Yemen based on the invitation of that government.

That's usually the reason why Russian interference in Syrian conflict is lauded and American interference is criticized. Yet, in Yemen, the standards are reversed in a display of grand hypocrycy.

Given that the US and Israel are committed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran

You have it the other way around. Again.

Having seen what has happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, any attempt at regime change in Iran is likely to result in a humanitarian disaster, floods of refugees and increased terrorism.

Events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, possibly even in Libya, were greatly worsened by Iranian interference. Iran funded extremists in all those conflicts. But I guess that's fine, because "they didn't directly kill anyone".

McHrozni

 

[TragicMonkey]

Just think how much better life could be if instead of playing these destructive games governments actually devoted those resources, time, and energy to improving their nations!

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems to be a constant that whenever we get new technology the first question is "Can we turn it into a weapon"?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just think how much better life could be if instead of playing these destructive games governments actually devoted those resources, time, and energy to improving their nations!

unfortunately, the Middle East is to some degree a zero-sum game: what weakens Saudi Arabia does relatively strengthen Iran.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All I care about is if and how much this will affect prices at my local gas station. Other than that, blow each other up, please.

You ought to care about the idiot POTUS who might do something really stupid about it.

 

[Belz...]

He's 40% pork by mass, he could never be a Muslim.

That's only a problem if he's ever in a position of eating himself like Pizza the Hutt.

 

[dudalb]

Two equally repressive fundamentalist regimes. Nothing much to choose between them from a moral point of view.
Which puzzles me why some on the left seem to have a Iran "good" /Saudi Arabia" bad attitude. I guess Iran has successfully sold itself as some kind of "anti imperialist" power.

I despise Trump with a passion, but I cannot buy this "Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend" routine. I that couple of "progressives" in this thread are pretty much de facto apologist for Iran to be pretty digusting.

 

[dudalb]

Can you take your nonesense somewhere else please? Iran has been sponsoring terrorist groups for decades, paying bounties to any terrorist who hurt westerners, of any stripe or color. You can't wave that off by saying "Iran directly killed no one" and pretend that's relevant when Iran has been sponsoring mass murders for the crime of being white.



Yes, the client state of Iraq invaded Iran with their American T-72 tanks and MiG fighters. Poor Iran only had the Soviet F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats to defend themselves.

Do you even read what you write?



This works both ways. Iran has been continuously provoking the West in general and USA in particular for 40 years straight.



Iran is supplying weapons to rebels who are fighting against an internationally recognized government. Saudis are in Yemen based on the invitation of that government.

That's usually the reason why Russian interference in Syrian conflict is lauded and American interference is criticized. Yet, in Yemen, the standards are reversed in a display of grand hypocrycy.



You have it the other way around. Again.



Events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, possibly even in Libya, were greatly worsened by Iranian interference. Iran funded extremists in all those conflicts. But I guess that's fine, because "they didn't directly kill anyone".

McHrozni

The guy you are having the discussion with is a perfect example of this left wing de facto Support of Iran I find so puzzling.
And, Iran has been screaming for the destruction of Israel since 1979.That seems have gone by this guy's head.